Alcohol and Other Drugs Prevention Challenges at Community Colleges Barbara E. Ryan A publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Funded by the U.S. Department of Education ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Acknowledgements We wish to thank the individuals listed below for providing us with information or reviewing draft manuscripts. We appreciate the comments they provided to help us ensure that this publication reflects current experiences and contains clear messages. To the extent that we have achieved that goal, the credit is theirs. To the extent we have not, the fault is ours. Heidi Christa-Adams, Mesa Community College Martha Baer Wilmes, National Clearinghouse for Commuter Programs (NCCP) Mich Barbezat, PhD, Elgin Community College Peggy Barker, San Diego Mesa College Pat Breslin, Western Wisconsin Technical College Susan Broderick, Santa Barbara City College Kathleen Cappetta, Network for Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion Carolyn Cornelison, PhD, BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network Beth DeRicco, Connecticut Campus Partnership Marilyn Dickson, Orange Coast College James H. Evans, San Diego City College Mark Harris, Lane Community College Mary A. Hill, Texas A&M University System Thomas Hoy, PhD, San Antonio College Donna Kier, Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College Gail Kinney, Chippewa Valley Technical College Ruth Nicholson, Valencia Community College Judy Patacsil, San Diego Miramar College Candyce D. Reynolds, PhD, Portland State University Alane Simons-Scott, Golden West College Sandra Tull, Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Renee Twigg, Mt. San Antonio College Riley H. Venable, University of New Orleans Shifra Teitelbaum, California State University, Long Beach For further information contact: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Tel.: (800) 676-1730 Fax: (617) 928-1537 Website: http://www.edc.org/hec/ E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org This publication was produced with funding from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number SS95013001 with Education Development Center, Inc. Views expressed are those of the contractor. No official support or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. Published 1998 The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, Massachusetts 02458-1060 Design/Layout: J. Lane Designs Photos courtesy of San Diego City College Photo page 22, courtesy of Brown University ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Students ] Contents Preface Executive Summary Prevention and Community Colleges Community College Students: How Are They Different? Prevention Challenges Strategies for Preventing Problems The Right Information: Laying a Foundation Starting Out: Guiding Principles A Range of Prevention Practice Policy Development, Implementation, and Enforcement Responsible Hosting Collaboration with Others Community Coalitions Academics and Prevention Changing Social Norms Gaining a Voice for Prevention Notes Selected Resources and Publications ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Preface The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention was established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993 to assist institutions of higher education in developing and carrying out alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention policies and programs that will promote campus and community safety and help nurture students’ academic and social development. To accomplish this mission, the Center seeks to increase the capacity of postsecondary schools to develop, implement, and evaluate programs and policies that are built around environmental management strategies. Environmental management means moving beyond general awareness and other education programs to identify and change those factors in the physical, social, legal, and economic environment that promote or abet alcohol and other drug problems. Clearly, stemming the use of alcohol and other drugs is not something that college administrators alone can achieve. Top administrators, especially presidents, must exercise leadership, but their success will depend ultimately on their ability to build a strong coalition of both on-campus and community interests. The better AOD prevention programs are campuswide efforts that involve as many parts of the college as possible, including students, staff, and faculty. For this reason, the Center emphasizes team-focused training and technical assistance work. Building coalitions with local community leaders is also key. College campuses do not exist in isolation. AOD prevention planners need to collaborate with local leaders to limit student access to alcohol, prevent intoxication, and support the efforts of local law enforcement. The Center therefore seeks to motivate and train academic leaders to work with local community representatives, while also joining with national organizations that urge local coalitions to increase their outreach to academic institutions. Specific Center objectives include promoting (1) college presidential leadership on AOD issues; (2) formation of AOD task forces that include community representation; (3) reform of campus AOD policies and programs; (4) a broad reexamination of campus conditions, including academic standards and requirements, the campus infrastructure, and the academic calendar; (5) formation of campus and community coalitions that focus on environmental change strategies; and (6) the participation of individuals from the higher education community in state-level and other associations that focus on public policy. The Center also seeks to increase the capacity of colleges and universities to conduct ongoing process and outcome evaluations of AOD prevention activities, both on campus and in the surrounding community. This publication represents one piece in a comprehensive approach to AOD prevention at institutions of higher education. The concepts and approaches it describes should be viewed in the broader context of prevention theory and the approaches affirmed by the U.S. Department of Education and promoted by the Center in its training, technical assistance, publication, and evaluation activities. For information on Center services, please contact: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Tel.: (800) 676-1730 Fax: (617) 928-1537 Website: http://www.edc.org/hec/ E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Executive Summary With over 5.5 million students on over 1,100 campuses, community colleges enroll more students than any other sector of higher education. AOD prevention at community colleges poses special challenges. Students spend little time on campus outside of class. They are often older than students at four-year institutions, hold down jobs, and have families. Funding and staff resources for prevention may be minimal. The commitment of many community colleges to career training can override interest in AOD prevention activities. However, many of those responsible for responding to and reducing AOD problems at community colleges express frustration at the lack of materials specifically focused on this substantial sector of higher education. Distinct features of community colleges warrant special attention. Sometimes called technical or junior colleges, community colleges are those institutions of higher education granting associate degrees and providing nonbaccalaureate certificate and credential programs. These institutions differ from career colleges, which are proprietary institutions offering training for specific careers, such as computer technology or hotel management. Assessing Problems Alcohol and drug problems differ, depending on a number of factors, including campus location, size, and type. In addition, students at community colleges differ from those at four-year institutions in significant ways, as well as among themselves, reflecting the diversity of community colleges across the country in terms of student body size, demographics, and academic objectives. National surveys at all types of institutions of higher education have found that community college students and those attending four-year colleges differ in a number of areas, including social demographics as well as alcohol and other drug use and related problems. Community college students do not conform to the stereotype of the traditional college student: an 18- to 21-year old living on or near campus. While the majority of all college students no longer fall into that group, on average community college students are older than their counterparts at four-year institutions. They are also less likely to be full-time students, more likely to be full-time workers, and more likely to live with family members. A study from the National Center for Education Statistics on older undergraduates (defined as 24 years or older) at all institutions of higher education found that only 18 percent of older undergraduates attending community colleges were enrolled as full-time students, as opposed to 47 percent of younger students. Older students are more likely to be married (54 percent compared with 7 percent) and have dependents other than a spouse (53 percent compared with 4 percent). More older students also work full-time. When beginning college, over 75 percent of older undergraduates perceived themselves primarily as workers, not students. Most older students attend community colleges to gain new job skills or expand their career options. They are highly motivated and have very specific and practical goals. While community college students drink alcohol at lower levels than students at four-year institutions do, they reported using tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, and hallucinogens at somewhat higher levels. Prevention efforts at community colleges may need to place greater emphasis on illicit drug use, especially for the so-called “performance drugs,” cocaine and amphetamines. With almost 50 percent of community college students reporting tobacco use, smoking control measures may also need to be a larger part of prevention efforts at community colleges. However, despite differences in alcohol and other drug use, students at two- and four-year institutions of higher education reported about the same levels of adverse consequences related to that use, with the exception of missed classes, which are reported more often by four-year students. Prevention Challenges Community colleges face many of the same challenges faced by four-year institutions in responding to the alcohol and other drug problems of their students. Moreover, despite their differences, community colleges and four-year institutions have much they can learn from each other. In fact, many four-year institutions, especially publicly funded commuter colleges and universities, may have more in common with community colleges than they do with private, residential colleges and universities. One common lament heard across institutional types is that there is a lack of resources available for prevention. According to a 1991 survey of community colleges, only 66 percent of respondents had a designated alcohol and other drug coordinator. Of those, only 11 percent worked full-time on alcohol and other drug issues, while 70 percent spent less than 25 percent of their time on alcohol and drug issues. The coordinator is often responsible for early identification, intervention, referral, and even counseling services as well as prevention. Survey respondents also said that on average campuses spent less than $5,000 a year to support alcohol and drug services, excluding personnel. A third reported no non-personnel funding. Getting Students Involved Community college students (as well as four-year commuter students) often spend little time on campus outside of class. A survey of over 1,400 students at four San Diego colleges (two four-year colleges and two community colleges) found that 56 percent of the community college students spent fewer than seven hours per week on campus outside of class, compared to 16 percent of four year college students who lived off campus. Twenty-five percent of the community college students were on-campus three or fewer hours per week outside of class-time that was probably spent walking to and from the parking lot. Students attend community colleges for a variety of reasons. They may plan to transfer to a four-year institution, pursue an associate degree, seek to improve their job skills, or train for a new career. They may complete their coursework in as little as a few weeks or as long as several years if they attend school part-time. Studies have found that students who are involved in their education both in and out of class report higher levels of success and satisfaction. But such involvement comes at a high price for community college students, who are more likely to work full-time, to attend college part-time, to live with spouses and children, and to commute to and from campus. Such time demands limit community college students’ ties to campus as well as their ability to get involved in campus activities outside of coursework. Preventing Problems Research suggests that the most promising approach to prevention is to rely on multiple strategies that affect the campus environment as a whole and can thereby have a large-scale impact on the entire campus community. Such an approach provides a range of roles that postsecondary administrators, faculty, other campus officials, and students at community colleges can play to reduce harm from alcohol and other drug use and to promote academic achievement. Because community colleges are so closely linked to the communities they serve, prevention strategies that are based on collaborations and coalitions with organizations, institutions, and businesses are likely to yield the most successful outcomes in terms of reduced problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prevention and Community Colleges Alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems among America’s college and university students have commanded much public attention over the past decade and have spurred interest among institutions of higher education (IHEs) in preventive measures. Further prompting IHEs to take preventive action has been the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989 and accompanying regulations, which require IHEs to adopt and enforce policies prohibiting unlawful AOD use. While attention and resources have focused mainly on four-year colleges and universities, 5.5 million students are enrolled at 1,112 community colleges, more than any other sector of higher education.1 Sometimes called technical colleges or junior colleges, community colleges are those IHEs granting associate degrees and providing nonbaccalaureate certificate and credential programs; they differ from career colleges, which offer training for specialized careers in fields such as computer technology or hotel management. Individuals responsible for responding to and reducing AOD problems at community colleges often find themselves struggling to adapt to their settings prevention measures developed for four-year institutions. Many express frustration at the lack of materials tailored to the concerns of community colleges. AOD prevention at community colleges poses special challenges. Students spend little time on campus outside of class. They are often older than students at four-year institutions, hold jobs, and have families. Funding and staff resources for prevention may be minimal. The commitment of community colleges to career training can override interest in AOD prevention activities. Nevertheless, many students, faculty, and staff at community colleges have a strong commitment to responding to AOD problems on campus, which has prompted schools to implement a wide range of prevention initiatives, activities, and policies. Like many of the prevention efforts at four-year IHEs, however, these experiences have not been systematically studied to discover and disseminate the most effective practices. This publication is intended to help fill that gap. It is targeted toward those individuals-whether faculty, staff, community members, or students-concerned with AOD problems among community college students. Many of the prevention approaches discussed are appropriate for career colleges as well as for four-year IHEs with large numbers of commuter students. The publication offers a brief profile of community college students, compares their patterns of AOD use with those of students at four-year IHEs, considers the prevention challenges facing community colleges, identifies strategies for reducing AOD problems at community colleges, and describes practices having strong potential for changing campus norms surrounding AOD use. Also included are the prevention experiences of community colleges and examples of practices that have been shown to be effective at a variety of schools. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Community College Students: How Are They Different? Students at community colleges differ from those at four-year institutions. While most undergraduates enter four-year institutions with the goal of graduating with a bachelor’s degree, students attend community colleges for a variety of reasons. They may plan to transfer to a four-year institution, pursue an associate degree, seek to improve their job skills, or train for a new career. They may complete their coursework in as little as a few weeks or as long as several years if they attend school part-time. In addition, national surveys at all types of IHEs have found distinct differences between community college students and four-year college students in social demographics and in AOD use and related problems.2 An important step in designing a comprehensive prevention strategy is gaining an understanding of the students and the nature of AOD problems at community colleges. Tables 1 through 5 present differences between students at two- and four-year IHEs and compare their AOD habits, consequences, and perceptions. As Table 1 suggests, community college students do not conform to the stereotype of the traditional college student: an 18- to 21-year-old living on or near campus. While the majority of all college students no longer fall into that group, on average community college students are older than their counterparts at four-year institutions. They are also less likely to be full-time students and more than twice as likely to be full-time workers and to live with family members.3 Most community colleges do not provide on-campus housing for their students. Of the 1,046 members of the American Association of Community Colleges, only 55 (5 percent) reported having residence halls. Since most community colleges are commuter campuses with students often housed throughout different communities, AOD problems may not be as visible as they are at four-year colleges with more centralized housing.4 A study from the National Center for Education Statistics on older undergraduates (defined as 24 years or older) at all institutions of higher education5 found that only 18 percent of older undergraduates attending community colleges were enrolled as full-time students compared with 47 percent of younger students. Older students are more likely than younger students to be married (54 percent compared with 7 percent) and to have dependents other than a spouse (53 percent compared with 4 percent). More older students also work full-time.6 Older students report less involvement with campus activities and fellow students than younger students. For example, 83 percent of younger students say they “sometimes” or “often” go places with other students, compared with 35 percent of older students. And older students make less use of campus services. Almost 20 percent of younger students say they “sometimes” or “often” go to student assistance centers or programs, compared with less than 13 percent of older students.7 When beginning college, more than 75 percent of older undergraduates perceived themselves primarily as workers, not students.8 Most older students attend community colleges to gain new job skills or expand their career options. They are highly motivated and have specific and practical goals.9 Moreover, community college students (as well as four-year commuter students) spend little time on campus outside of class. A survey of more than 1,400 students at four San Diego colleges (two four-year colleges and two community colleges) found that 56 percent of the community college students spent fewer than seven hours per week on campus outside of class, compared with 16 percent of four-year college students who lived off campus.10 Twenty-five percent of the community college students were on campus three or fewer hours per week outside of class, time that was probably spent walking to and from the parking lot. Student surveys conducted at colleges between 1993 and 1994 provide a picture of AOD use and its consequences among both two- and four-year students. Notably, most community colleges are alcohol-free,and, as shown in Table 2, the frequency and rate of alcohol consumption is lower at two-year institutions than at four-year institutions. Older students, who make up a large segment of the community college population, drink less than younger students, with 23 percent saying they are abstainers, compared with 16 percent of younger students. Older students who do drink consume at lower levels and less frequently, while the drinking patterns of younger two-year college students resemble those of four-year college students. Community college students under the age of 25 years reported consuming an average of 4.4 drinks per week. Four-year college students (all ages) consumed 4.7 drinks per week on average, while older community college students consumed an average of 2.3 drinks per week.11 While community college students drink alcohol at lower levels than students at four-year institutions (Table 2), they reported using tobacco, cocaine, and amphetamines, at higher levels (Table 3).12 Prevention efforts at community colleges may need to place greater emphasis on illicit drug use, especially for the so-called performance drugs, cocaine and amphetamines. With almost 50 percent of community college students reporting tobacco use, smoking control measures may also need to become a larger part of prevention efforts at community colleges. As noted in Table 4, despite differences in AOD use, students at two- and four-year IHEs reported similar levels of adverse consequences related to that use, with the exception of missed classes, which are reported more often by four-year students.13 Table 5 presents responses to questions about students’ perceptions of campus alcohol policies and concerns, as well as their preferences regarding social environments. While more than two-thirds of students at both two- and four-year IHEs believe that their campus is concerned about AOD problems, fewer students at two-year colleges report that their campus has policies or programs addressing those problems.14 As Table 5 shows, the majority two-year and four-year students prefer to have alcohol served at parties on or near campus. But more community college students than four-year college students prefer alcohol-free social environments. Both groups overwhelmingly prefer drug-free environments at social events. As these data suggest, prevention strategies that discourage AOD use at social events are likely to receive support from students at community colleges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prevention Challenges Community colleges face many of the same challenges as four-year institutions in responding to the AOD problems of their students. Moreover, despite their differences, community colleges and four-year institutions can learn a great deal from each other. Indeed, many four-year institutions, especially publicly funded commuter colleges and universities, probably have more in common with community colleges than they do with private residential colleges and universities. A common lament heard across institutional types is the lack of resources available for prevention. Resources often mean personnel-all too often a sole individual on campus is responsible for AOD prevention efforts. According to a 1991 survey of community colleges, only 66 percent of respondents had a designated AOD coordinator.15 Of those, only 11 percent worked full-time on AOD issues; 70 percent spent less than 25 percent of their time on AOD issues. This person was often responsible not only for prevention but also for early identification, intervention, referral, and even counseling services. Survey respondents also said that campuses on average spent less than $5,000 a year to support AOD prevention services, excluding personnel. One-third reported no nonpersonnel funding. Clearly, prevention coordinators are asked to do a lot with a little. Even with adequate resources, effective prevention cannot be the responsibility of one individual or even one office on any campus, whether it be a large, urban or a small, rural community college. Faculty, staff, and community members all have a role to play in prevention; all can contribute resources to support prevention efforts. Leadership for prevention can come from any of those groups. Furthermore, students themselves are a valuable and necessary part of any prevention effort. Without their support, change in the norms and attitudes surrounding AOD use is unlikely. Since students are juggling demanding roles and responsibilities, involving them in prevention activities poses still another challenge for community colleges. The task facing community colleges, then, is to identify opportunities for change and create multifaceted strategies for making prevention an integral part of campus and community life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Strategies for Preventing Problems Research suggests that the most promising approach to prevention is employing multiple strategies that affect the campus environment as a whole. A comprehensive approach provides a range of opportunities for administrators, faculty, other campus officials, and students to play significant roles in reducing harm from AOD use and to promote academic achievement. It includes the following five key elements:16 1. Clear policies 2. Policy enforcement 3. Education 4. Intervention and referral for treatment 5. Campus assessment and program evaluation The Right Information: Laying a Foundation Some may not think that collecting information constitutes a prevention strategy. But because it provides a sound basis for future decisions and actions, accurate information can be a powerful tool for AOD prevention. At what levels do students use alcohol and other drugs? Where? When? What forces in the campus and community environment drive decisions on whether to drink or use drugs? What kinds of problems are students experiencing? What do they do to reduce their risks for problems? Actual problems often differ from problems assumed before the collection of information. Only by understanding campus-specific patterns of use and related problems can colleges design the targeted prevention strategies that public health research has found to be essential in achieving change. (For more information on strategies for collecting and using information to support prevention activities, see the College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide, cited in Selected Resources and Publications.) Information also serves as a motivator. A campus-specific finding that more than half of student attrition is related to AOD use is a compelling reason for the college president, faculty, and administration to support prevention efforts. An analysis of ads in the campus newspaper that uncovers high rates of local bar ads targeting students with “happy hour” drink specials can persuade local alcohol control officials, community groups, and merchant associations to become involved in prevention efforts. For example, when students at Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College presented results of their data collection activities to the college president, board of directors, and deans, they got strong support for prevention activities. Starting Out: Guiding Principles Experiences from two- and four-year colleges across the country suggest that the following principles are critical to success: Build institutional commitment. Institutional commitment to AOD prevention can be built by linking prevention goals to the college’s mission. The mission of many community colleges is to prepare students for employment; with many businesses now engaged in their own prevention efforts, the activities of schools and companies complement one another. Prevention can also tie in with student success and retention efforts, which are consistent with an emerging focus on academic reform. (For additional information, see Institutionalizing Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Programs, cited in Selected Resources and Publications.) The Higher Education Center’s Presidents Leadership Group has offered their fellow presidents the following recommendations for building institutional commitment to prevention: Be Vocal. College presidents should openly and publicly acknowledge that alcohol and other drug abuse problems exist and then reach out to campus, community, and state-level groups to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for prevention. Be Visible. College presidents should take an active stand on alcohol and other drug issues, convey clear expectations and standards, and serve as a role model to other senior administrators, faculty, and students. Be Visionary. College presidents should make alcohol and other drug prevention a priority in their strategic plan for the school.17 Avoid spreading resources too thinly. As noted earlier, AOD program coordinators and other campus officials regularly bemoan the lack of resources. Working with limited resources makes it easy to spread resources (and people) too thinly, resulting in diminished effectiveness and frustration for all involved. The better approach is to focus at first on a problem where there is a high probability of successful resolution in the near term and to build a prevention program over time on that foundation. Change the campus and community environment. Prevention strategies aimed at changing environments in which alcohol is served and consumed have demonstrated a reduction in alcohol-related problems.18 For example, when 60 percent of commercial servers of alcoholic beverages had been trained under Oregon’s mandatory server training program, single-vehicle nighttime crashes (which are likely to involve alcohol) declined by 23 percent.19 Projects aimed at changing exaggerated perceptions of the frequency of student alcohol use reduced misperceptions as well as actual binge drinking behavior.20 Tailor approaches to specific target groups. Because students enrolled at community colleges are a diverse group in terms of age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, academic status, outside obligations, and educational objectives, multiple approaches are needed to reach them. For example, a school may schedule regular responsible hosting party planning events for campus groups or tie prevention activities to celebrations or holidays observed by different ethnic groups on campus, such as June’teenth, Cinqo de Mayo, or Chinese New Year. Avoid preaching to the choir. Students, faculty, and staff with diverse interests and responsibilities can bring a wide range of perspectives and skills to support prevention efforts. Prevention efforts that reach beyond obvious allies in the health sciences have a greater chance of reaching the broader community. For example, some schools have successfully engaged faculty members and students in communications departments in the design of mass media prevention campaigns. Others have worked with hospitality industry faculty and students in developing responsible beverage service efforts for social and commercial hosts. Evaluate programs. Evaluation is vital to prevention efforts.21 While few question the value of knowing whether prevention efforts are working, for the most part these efforts have not been rigorously evaluated. While full-blown evaluation research is beyond the reach of most prevention programs, schools can monitor changes in AOD problem levels and assess the impact of prevention efforts in ways that do not require a large investment of resources.22 For examples of such approaches see College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide listed in Selected Resources and Publications. Make students part of the solution. All too often students are viewed as the problem and not part of the solution when it comes to AOD use. Yet it is students who bear the consequences of high-risk AOD consumption, and changes in the campus environment will affect them the most. Students can help ensure that AOD prevention efforts are directed at the most prominent and prevalent problems, offering insights into which approaches will be most effective on their campus and among their peers. They can provide talent, time, and other resources to move prevention activities forward. Because students have much at stake, they should play an important role in deciding which actions to take to tackle problems. How can busy community college students be brought into prevention efforts? It’s a matter of matching prevention objectives with student interests and then providing incentives for involvement. While the approach is the same for all students, the kinds of incentives needed may differ for community college students (or commuter students), who spend less time on campus and may have weaker institutional affiliation than residential students. Students can become involved through many avenues. Most college students seek an education, involvement in interesting activities, and career planning and development opportunities. The Major Connections prevention program at the State University of New York at New Paltz seeks to develop institutional affiliation among its students through alcohol-free programs that foster social interaction between faculty and students. Increased interaction between students and faculty enhances student satisfaction with the college choice, decreases negative student behaviors, and improves student retention. Major Connections is part of SUNY-New Paltz’s comprehensive prevention program, which has documented decreases in student binge drinking over the last four years. Community service and volunteer work, student government and other organizations, academic coursework, service learning, internships, and paid positions are just some of the ways that students can get involved in AOD prevention efforts on their campus and in their community. Given the limitations on their time, community college students may be especially motivated by opportunities for course credit. For example, members of a student prevention team at San Diego Miramar Community College, held a seminar on how to be a responsible social host. Team members asked faculty members in different departments to award extra credit to their students who attended the seminar. More than 80 percent of students in attendance gained academic credit while learning how to be responsible if they chose to serve alcohol at a party. Many community and four-year college students alike are bridging the classroom and the community by engaging in community service as part of their academic coursework. Service learning builds on classic volunteerism by linking volunteer experience to educational objectives. Federal initiatives, such as Learn & Serve America or the Comparing Models of Community Service Research Project, have stimulated interest in community service and academics. In response, community colleges and four-year colleges have expanded service learning programs on a broad scale. Students enrolled in service learning courses take part in a community service project related to course content, along with traditional coursework. They usually engage in some type of reflection activity-such as keeping journals, writing papers, or participating in group discussion-as part of the experience. Service learning offers a range of possibilities for student involvement in prevention, from working with a local prevention consortium to working with alcohol retailers on a responsible alcoholic beverage service program. Results of a national survey conducted by the American Association of Community Colleges in 1995 found that 77 percent of community colleges are either actively involved in or interested in offering service learning. Peervention is a peer education-based service learning project at Mesa Community College in Arizona. Peervention participants receive academic credits, transferable to other colleges and universities, for their volunteer experience. Students can earn up to three credits for 150 hours of service. “Participation in Peervention has supported students in setting and attaining their educational goals,” said Heidi Christa-Adams, a faculty member in the counseling department at Mesa. “It provides an opportunity for participants to contribute to their campus and community.” Students who complete training receive national certification as peer educators. Training includes information on AOD use and problems. Students are mentored by Peervention alumni. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Range of Prevention Practices Prevention research has identified a number of approaches that either have been shown to be effective in reducing certain types of AOD problems or are promising. While most prevention research has been conducted in communities, not on campuses, many colleges and universities, including community colleges, have implemented prevention measures based on that research. In addition, colleges and universities are working with surrounding communities in coalitions to strengthen the impact of their prevention efforts. The prevention strategies described below have all been implemented, in varying degrees, on community college or commuter campuses and show promise in reducing AOD problems among community college students. Policy Development, Implementation, and Enforcement The Drug Free Schools and Campuses Act Amendments of 1989 and accompanying regulations require IHEs to adopt and enforce policies prohibiting unlawful AOD use. Under the Act, an IHE that receives federal funds in any form must at a minimum adopt an AOD prevention program and policy that clearly prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol on school property or as part of any school activity. Schools that do not comply with these regulations may be disqualified from receiving federal funds or participating in student loan programs (see Complying With the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations: A Guide for University and College Administrators, cited in Selected Resources and Publications. Community colleges have developed and implemented a variety of policies on their campuses to both comply with federal law and reduce problems. Most campuses set up committees to work on policies. Committees are often established by top administrators, such as presidents, and include high-level representatives of relevant campus constituencies, including members of the board of trustees, deans, alumni council leaders, faculty, and students in leadership positions. If the college president recruits the committee, it signals to the campus and community that AOD prevention is a top priority. Because alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs-and the ones most prevalent on campus-most policy efforts focus on them, as opposed to illicit drugs like marijuana and cocaine, which are controlled under the strict no-use proscription of federal and state law. For example, the nonsmokers’ rights movement has led to the adoption of nonsmoking policies in many public and private buildings on and off campus. Many colleges also ban the sale or service of alcohol on campus. Others prohibit faculty, staff, and students from being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs while on campus. Some colleges have gone further to prohibit persons from being under the influence at any college-sponsored activity, including those held off campus. Other policies target alcoholic beverage promotion. Some colleges ban all alcoholic beverage advertising in campus newspapers or on campus bulletin boards. Other policies may restrict advertising content to ensure that it does not promote high-risk drinking practices, such as cheap drinks or late-night “happy hours,” or policies may require equal time for health and safety messages. Students at one community college proposed a policy that would prevent the campus bookstore from selling shot glasses, beer mugs, or other alcohol-related items bearing the college seal. Campus prevention policies might also cover alcoholic beverage industry sponsorship of student organizations or events, such as athletic teams or campus festivals, or alcohol availability at campus-related events. At some colleges, student organizations must complete a registration process for alcohol-related events. Some colleges have developed written guidelines for events (based on responsible hospitality practices) that student organizations must follow, cited in Selected Resources and Publications. Policy development and adoption provide an opportunity for community discussion on AOD problems and prevention measures to reduce them. The discussion may in itself lead to a greater commitment to prevention goals among members of the campus community. (See Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for Administrators, cited in Selected Resources and Publications.) Responsible Hosting The environment in which people drink can affect drinking behavior and alcohol-related problems. Drinking environments can be commercial (e.g., bars, restaurants, and taverns) or social (e.g., parties, receptions, and special events). Responsible hosting practices seek to modify those environments through policies and training to reduce risks for underage drinking and drinking to intoxication. Responsible hosting also helps commercial and social hosts meet the needs of guests or patrons for an enjoyable experience while also creating a safe and comfortable environment for all those in attendance. While most community colleges are alcohol-free, as noted earlier, a 1991 survey of community colleges in the United States and Canada24 found that 21 percent allowed alcohol to be served on campus and 8 percent permitted the sale of alcoholic beverages on campus. At events where alcohol is served, 68 percent of the campuses required that nonalcoholic beverages also be available, and 56 percent required food service. Both those policies are examples of responsible hosting. Changing environments through responsible hosting Student groups at two community colleges conducted a variety of activities to promote responsible hosting policies and practices. They trained students, gave classroom presentations on laws related to alcohol sales and service, and attended campus events, where they promoted responsible hosting techniques such as serving food, using party themes and games that don't involve high-risk alcohol consumption, and ensuring that nonalcoholic beverages are available. Other measures included having sober monitors, trained bartenders, and alternative transportation. Student surveys conducted before and after the prevention interventions found that more students observed the following practices at subsequent social events: * parties had a designated bartender * nondrinking hosts were present * alcohol service ended one hour before the event was over * limits were placed on the number of drinks purchased per sale * intoxicated persons were refused service * steps were taken to deal with intoxicated guests Many community colleges offer academic programs in food service and hotel management. Students in these programs are likely to be interested in responsible hosting techniques since they will be developing or managing environments in which alcohol is served. Policies and techniques for responsible hosting are certainly appropriate topics for curriculum infusion in such programs. Responsible party time At Western Wisconsin Technical College, students in a food service program hold an end-of-the-semester party for students. Students are responsible for all of the planning and preparation, as well as for the actual event. They plan menus, decorations, and music. Students work with the AOD coordinator to choose nonalcoholic beverages, which are served by student bartenders. The student government funds the event; admission is free for students while nonstudents are charged one dollar to help cover event costs. The nonalcoholic beverages were so popular at the student party that a faculty member attending the event requested the recipes so that the drinks could be served at faculty end-of-the-semester party. Collaboration with Others Prevention is a group effort requiring the support and involvement of the campus and surrounding community. Many colleges form an AOD prevention committee that brings together representatives from academic departments, administrative staff, and student and community groups to assess problems and develop programs and activities to reduce them. This group may act in an advisory capacity to the campus AOD policy committee or act independently to support prevention initiatives. To achieve change on campus, prevention committees must provide opportunities and incentives for all members of the campus community to become involved, including students, faculty, all levels of staff, parents, alumni, and community members. Indeed, an inclusive process for developing standards for the environment and for acceptable behavior among community members may be more important than the standards themselves. In addition, the involvement of the campus administration is a prerequisite for meaningful change. Most community colleges have some form of student government that addresses issues affecting campus and student life. Students involved with government bodies on campus can be important allies for prevention. They are often leaders who are interested in making a difference on their campus. In addition, student governments often play a formal role in policy review and agenda setting, providing a venue for bringing AOD prevention before the campus community. Community Coalitions While a college campus is often thought of as a self-contained community, it also functions within a larger community. Students live, work, shop, and drink alcohol off campus. They volunteer in community agencies. These community ties are especially apparent at community colleges and commuter campuses. Community members have a stake in efforts to promote healthy and safe campuses and prevent AOD problems among students. Community members who share neighborhoods with college students may be disturbed by loud parties and the rowdy behavior of intoxicated students. Reducing high-risk and illegal alcohol consumption by college students can improve campus-community relations. Getting community members to work together to achieve goals and objectives requires organizing in a structured way. Often that means forming a coalition of individuals representing diverse groups, factions, or constituencies who agree to work toward achieving a common goal. These might include elected officials, business leaders, law enforcement chiefs, and leaders of local prevention coalitions. Coalitions may be temporary or permanent, formal or informal. They vary in size, structure, intensity, permanence, and function. Some coalitions share information among their broader membership about the activities and efforts of particular individuals or agencies. In others, individuals or agencies coordinate their own services and activities. Finally, coalition individuals or agencies may collaborate to set and achieve common goals and objectives. Some coalitions may have multiple functions. Most AOD prevention coalitions have formed in the larger community. These can be an effective vehicle for campus prevention efforts because they provide a broadly based forum for developing shared responses to AOD problems among students. Much of the knowledge gathered from community coalition experiences can be applied to other campus issues as well. Because many students at community colleges expect to move directly into careers, helping them meet the expectations of business, labor, and industry can be an important part of prevention efforts. Under federal Drug-Free Workplace initiatives, many businesses have adopted policies on AOD use among their employees. In one collaborative effort to help students become job-ready, the Oregon Business Council’s Higher Education Team brought chief executives from businesses together with college presidents, including those of community colleges, in a prevention partnership. One campaign message developed for campuses was: Alcohol abuse or illegal drug use will end the hiring process.25 Learning from others Although community colleges differ from four-year colleges in many ways, similar groups of students exist on both campuses. Experiences at four-year colleges targeting the following groups may be relevant to community college prevention efforts: * commuters * residential students * younger, full-time students * athletes * members of club and organizations Participating in intercollegiate consortia, attending local, regional, or national collegiate prevention meetings, or joining the Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse provides exposure to experiences at other campuses. For example, the Network, a voluntary organization of almost 1,400 colleges and universities working together on AOD prevention issues, organizes meetings in 21 regions across the country. For information on connecting with other colleges, contact the Higher Education Center, cited in Selected Resources and Publications. Academics and Prevention Linking academic work to prevention efforts takes prevention to the one place on campus where students are sure to be: the classroom. Faculty members bring AOD prevention information into coursework in a number of ways. Sometimes they invite students or staff to give prevention presentations in their classes. High-level administrators at one campus sent out memos encouraging faculty members to schedule in-class prevention sessions. Don’t Cancel That Class programs encourage faculty members who, for whatever reason, will miss a class to request an AOD prevention session instead of canceling it. Furthermore, as noted earlier, community college students are likely to be motivated by the opportunity to obtain course credit for prevention activities. Faculty members can do their part by assigning projects related to AOD prevention or giving students extra credit for participating in prevention activities. Service learning, discussed earlier, provides still another opportunity for linking academics with prevention activities. The Network for the Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion offers materials and training on how to link prevention with academics through coursework (see page 30, for information on the Network). Students who take noncredit adult or community education courses, such as English as a Second Language (ESL) or enrichment courses, can also obtain prevention information in class. At one college, staff adapted and translated an AOD prevention curriculum used in other classes for their ESL program. Changing the environment off campus As part of a four-campus (two-year and four-year institutions) prevention project in San Diego, students found out through surveys that many of their peers frequented the same bars and clubs. They collaborated to improve responsible hosting practices at these establishments. Students from each campus chose a bar or club to visit and conduct a risk assessment. They then met with the owner or manager to review their findings, discuss the low-risk practices in place, and make suggestions for improving practices and policies to lower the risk for alcohol-related problems. Follow-up assessments found that some of their suggestions had been implemented. Working as a team allowed students to focus on more clubs and bars than they would have on their own and gave added weight to their recommendations since they represented a larger college population. Some colleges have implemented a prevention training course for faculty covering prevention theory and approaches. Campus administration encourages faculty attendance, often providing incentives, such as a modest honorarium. Training helps faculty members understand how and why prevention fits within their courses. Changing Social Norms Some students believe that alcohol or other drugs are necessary to have a good time at a social event. In fact, studies have found that there are significant discrepancies between actual alcohol use by college students and their perception of other students’ alcohol use. Regardless of drinker type or level of use, students think the campus drinking norm is greater than their own personal use, resulting in a “reign of error” that has a powerful negative influence on student drinking behavior.26, 27 Several campuses have attempted to correct this misperception through social marketing campaigns based on projects at Northern Illinois University.28 These programs provide students with accurate information on the drinking behavior of their peers using a variety of approaches, such as posters, quizzes, and newspaper ads. Many campuses also attempt to demonstrate that drinking or drug using are not essential for having a good time by organizing or promoting AOD-free social events. Colleges have been very creative in organizing these kinds of activities, which might include movie nights, boat cruises, Super Bowl parties, discos, and an indoor beach party in February. Indeed, all social activities can be alcohol-free. Some prevention coordinators on campus, however, caution against marketing these so-called alternative social events as a prevention activity. The idea is to remove emphasis on either the presence or absence of alcoholic beverages in social settings. In Rethinking the Campus Environment, the authors found that social opportunities designed for nondrinkers and many occasional drinkers should focus on traditional and family oriented activities, such as birthday parties and other traditional celebrations. They do not associate alcohol with fun, but rather think of games, movies, watching television, talking, and shopping as fun activities.29 Gaining a Voice for Prevention Because of the high rates of student turnover and relatively low levels of institutional affiliation at community colleges, communicating prevention messages poses special challenges. Three communication strategies show promise for overcoming those challenges: social marketing, mass media, and media advocacy. These strategies are not mutually exclusive and may all be part of a comprehensive communication program to advance AOD prevention on campus. Schools can use communication strategies to support the full range of prevention initiatives, from policy development to responsible beverage service programs. Social Marketing. Borrowing techniques from commercial advertising and the behavioral sciences, social marketing uses communication channels to promote a particular message or behavior. (Health education strategies, by contrast, seek to provide information and skill development that enables audiences to make informed and wise choices on their own.) Social marketing has been used quite successfully in tobacco control campaigns. For example, the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program aired television advertisements on the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke that were intended to help create a climate of support for health board policies being considered by cities and towns. Social marketing campaigns may address four basic objectives: * general awareness, * individual behavior change, * promotion of community-based interventions, and * promotion of public action for environmental change. In general, most social marketing campaigns emphasize the first two objectives, giving little attention to building public support for changes in institutional structures, public policies, or laws that would reinforce and sustain the efforts of individuals to alter their behavior (see Social Marketing Strategies for Campus Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, cited in Selected Resources and Publications. Social marketing, as one component in the overall strategic prevention plan for a campus, can play a critical role in producing environmental change. While the theory and practice of social marketing have been applied to a number of public health problems, few examples exist of its use to prevent or reduce AOD use in higher education. Communicating on wheels Most community college students are commuters who spend a lot of time in cars, buses, subways, or on bicycles. Alcoholic beverage manufacturers, distributors, and retailers target commuter students by placing flyers on the windshields of cars in campus parking lots, advertising on billboards close to campus, posting ads in buses, and airing ads on radio stations. Commuter campuses have developed their own creative approaches for making automobiles and other forms of transportation part of their prevention activities, such as: * flyers on car windshields (check campus posting policies and return later to pick up any flyers that may be littering the parking lot * signs at campus parking lot entries and exits * counter ads or prevention programs on popular radio stations * billboards * prevention messages on parking permits, brochures, and campus maps * flyers or signs at bicycle racks * signs on buses At Mt. San Antonio College, in Walnut, California, parking permits hang from the rear-view mirror. The prevention coordinator worked with the parking office to have prevention messages printed on the back of the permit, along with information on contacting local resources. These messages appear on faculty, staff, and student permits. With strong support from the president, the prevention program has warded off attempts by other departments to use this prime space for their messages Mass media. Mass media can enhance community-based interventions in three primary ways: * enroll new program participants, recruit volunteers, win financial support, or sustain the morale of those already involved * announce the availability of self-help materials, ongoing program activities, and special events * reinforce the instruction provided by other community-based programs, including skill development, self-monitoring, and other behavior change maintenance activities. Media advocacy. Media advocacy is a communication strategy aimed at advancing a social or public policy initiative through the strategic use of mass media-that is, getting the media to tell people not only what issues to think about but also how to think about those issues.31 Through the use of media advocacy techniques, AOD prevention advocates can attract the attention of different media channels and tell the story so that the media will cover it from a public health perspective. Effective media advocacy follows a structured process to advance policy goals and answers the following five questions: * What is the problem? * What are the proposed solutions? * What are the group’s goals? * What can be achieved? * How can the group use the media strategically to achieve its goals? For more information on media advocacy, see Raising More Voices Than Mugs: Changing the College Alcohol Environment Through Media Advocacy, cited in Selected Resources and Publications. This guide describes methods for bringing attention to alcohol-related problems and winning support for solutions through media advocacy strategies. Of course, no single communication strategy is enough to bring about campus-wide policy and cultural change. Social marketing, mass media, and media advocacy are important elements of a comprehensive prevention campaign to change the campus culture surrounding AOD use. Communication strategies that use mass media channels can help schools achieve their prevention goals by reaching as large an audience as possible of community college students and community members. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes 1. K. Phillipe, Community College Enrollment, research brief (Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges, 1995). 2. C.A. Presley, P.W. Meilman, and R. Lyerla, Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus Environment, vol. IV: 1992-1994 (Carbondale, IL: The Core Institute, 1996). 3. S.P. Choy, Profile of Older Undergraduates: 1989-90. Statistical Analysis Report (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 1995). 4. D.T. McAloon, “The Effect of Alcohol Abuse on Academic Achievement on Two-Year Campuses,” Community College Review, vol. 22 (1994): 12-18. 5. Choy, Profile of Older Undergraduates. 6. Presley, Meilman, and Lyerla, Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses. 7. Choy, Profile of Older Undergraduates. 8. J. Conrad, Educating Part-Time Adult Learners in Transition (ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1993). 9. Presley, Meilman, and Lyerla, Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses. 10. Intercollegiate Alcohol Impaired Driving Prevention Project, unpublished report. University of California, San Diego, 1994. 11. Presley, Meilman, and Lyerla, Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. D.S. Anderson and G. Pressley, Drug and Alcohol Survey of Community, Technical, and Junior Colleges (George Mason University, VA, and Nassau Community College, NY, 1991). 16. M. Upcraft and J. Welty, A Guide for College Presidents and Governing Boards: Strategies for Eliminating Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse on Campuses (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1990). 17. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, Presidents Leadership Group, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997). 18. Seventh Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990). 19. H. Holder and A. Wagenaar, “Mandated Server Training and Reduced Alcohol-Involved Crashes: A Time Series Analysis of the Oregon Experience,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 26, no. 1 (1994): 89-94. 20. M.P. Haines, A Social Norms Approach to Preventing Binge Drinking at Colleges and Universities (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1996). 21. L.D. Muraskin, Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs (Westat, Inc., 1993). 22. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide, 2nd. ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997). 23. Anderson and Pressley, Drug and Alcohol Survey of Community, Technical, and Junior Colleges. 24. Ibid. 25. ”Business and Higher Education: The Oregon Experience,” Prevention File: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs, vol. 8, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 14-17. 26. H.W. Perkins and A.D. Berkowitz, “Perceiving the Community Norms of Alcohol Use among Students: Some Research Implications for Campus Alcohol Education Programming," International Journal of the Addictions, no. 21 (1986): 971-976. 27. H.W. Perkins, “Confronting Misperceptions of Peer Drug Use Norms among College Students: An Alternative Approach for Alcohol and Drug Education Programs,” Peer Prevention Program Implementation Manual (Fort Worth, TX: Higher Education Leaders/Peers Network, Texas Christian University, 1991): 11-29. 28. M.P. Haines, A Social Norms Approach to Preventing Binge Drinking at Colleges and Universities. 29. C.T. Goree and L.B. Szalay, Rethinking the Campus Environment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1996). 30. A. Altizer, R. Randall, and B. Bowers, “Party on the Rocks: Plan a Successful Alcohol-Free Event,” Campus Activities Programming, vol. 28 (1995): 56-90. 31. L. Wallack, L. Dorfman, D. Jernigan, and M. Themba, Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Selected Resources and Publications Organizations and Agencies The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. The U.S. Department of Education created the Center in 1993 to provide colleges and universities with materials, training, technical assistance, and other resources to help prevent adverse consequences associated with AOD use. The Center is the nation’s primary resource for helping colleges and universities develop and carry out AOD problem prevention on campuses and in surrounding communities. Web: http://www.edc.org/hec/ Tel: 800/676-1730 Fax: 617/928-1537 Mail: Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 American Association of Community Colleges. AACC is the primary advocacy organization for the nation’s 1,100 two-year degree-granting institutions. Organized in 1920, AACC promotes the causes of its member colleges through: (1) legislative advocacy, (2) monitoring of national issues and trends, (3) collection, analysis, and dissemination of information, (4) representation with other educational agencies and the national media, and (5) research and publication of news and scholarly analyses. The Association is a nonprofit organization located in the National Center for Higher Education, in Washington, DC. Web: http://www.aacc.nche.edu Tel: 202/728-0200, ext. 216 Fax: 202/833-2467 Mail: One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036-1176 The Core Institute. Analyzes student surveys from IHEs, including community colleges, and periodically publishes reports on its findings. Its series of publications, Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus Environment, are available through the Core Institute. Web: http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/ Tel: 618/453-4366 Mail: Center for Alcohol and Drug Studies Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 Major Connections, State University of New York at New Paltz. Major Connections is a project which enables academic departments and student clubs to create programs which foster social interaction between faculty and students. Tel: 914/257-3616 Fax: 914/257-3617 Mail: The Center for Student Development Student Union 38 New Paltz, NY 12561-2433 National Clearinghouse for Commuter Programs. NCCP is a national organization serving professionals who are initiating or enhancing services and programs for students who live off campus. It provides support and assistance to professionals as they work on behalf of commuter students in all types of colleges and universities. NCCP publishes a quarterly newsletter, The Commuter, which focuses on issues such as adult learners and student programming. Web: http://www.inform.umd.edu/ NCCP Tel: 301/324-5274 Fax: 301/314-9874 Mail: 1195 Stamp Student Union University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Office of Community College Services, The BACCHUS & GAMMA Peer Education Network. The BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network is an international association of college and university-based peer education programs focusing on alcohol prevention and other related student health and safety issues. It is the mission of the Association to actively promote peer education as a useful element of campus health education and wellness efforts. The Office of Community College Services provides resources and services to community colleges, including a Community College Guide to Peer Education. Web: http://www.bacchusgamma.org Tel: 904/488-4020 Fax: 904/488-2202 Mail: Tallhassee Community College 444 Appleyard Drive Tallahassee, FL 32304-2895 Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. The Network is a voluntary organization of almost 1,400 colleges and universities that have agreed to adhere to AOD prevention principles and procedures in the areas of policy, education, enforcement, and assessment. For information on the Network, contact the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Web: http://www.edc.org/hec/ Tel: 800/676-1730 Fax: 617/928-1537 Mail: Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Network for Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion. NDCI has published a monograph on its analysis of successful curriculum infusion programs. A set of video materials introducing the curriculum infusion process and video materials on faculty training for curriculum infusion are available for purchase from NDCI, which also conducts workshops and provides consultation for the development of curriculum infusion programs in higher education. Tel: 773/794-6697 Fax: 773/794-6242 Mail: Northeastern Illinois University 5500 N. St. Louis Chicago, IL 60625 National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information. NCADI is funded by the U.S. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. It is the world’s largest repository of AOD prevention materials and resources. NCADI includes on-line databases and a catalog of publications and materials. Web: http://www.health.org Tel: 800/729-6686 Fax: 301/468-6433 Mail: P.O. Box 2345 Rockville, MD 20852 Responsible Hospitality Institute. A private, not-for-profit organization, RHI provides a range of services to facilitate community organizing around the issue of responsible hospitality, including publications, trainings, and technical assistance. Tel: 408/438-1404 Fax: 408/438-3306 Mail: 4113 Scotts Valley Drive Scotts Valley, CA 95066 TEAM (Techniques for Effective Alcohol Management). The TEAM Coalition sponsors a variety of programs to promote responsible beverage service at sports facilities, to reduce alcohol-related incidents, and to help patrons have a safe ride home. The coalition includes the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Tel: 301/656-3100 Fax: 301/652-5264 Mail: 7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 Higher Education Center Publications The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention maintains an inventory of publications to support prevention at colleges and universities. New titles are routinely added to the Center’s inventory and are available on the Center’s Website at http://www.edc.org/hec/ or by calling 800/676-1730. Center Publications Cited in Text Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. The Presidents Leadership Group provides college and university presidents with a set of recommendations for advancing prevention at their institutions. 58 pages. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide. This publication describes a system for understanding, documenting, and responding to alcohol-related problems at colleges and universities. It includes a set of scanning and analysis exercises to help students, faculty, and staff develop a problems surveillance system to support prevention efforts. 103 pages. Complying with the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A Guide for University and College Administrators. Provides IHEs with information on federal regulations and strategies for complying with them. 36 pages. Institutionalizing Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Programs. Helps new AOD coordinators establish and maintain prevention efforts. 8 pages. Raising More Voices Than Mugs: Changing the College Media Environment Through Media Advocacy. Helps prevention program coordinators and students use media advocacy to bring attention to alcohol-related problems on campus and helps win support for the solutions, while effectively countering the arguments of groups with differing viewpoints. 62 pages. Social Marketing Strategies for Campus Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems. Explores how social marketing can be employed to change how students establish patterns of alcohol and other drug use. 34 pages. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for Administrators. Provides a comprehensive overview of the policy-setting process at IHEs; includes recommended policy strategies. 114 pages. Other Publications The Fact Is . . . Communication Series. Provides clear guidance on developing communications programs in support of prevention efforts. Available through the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (see Organizations and Agencies). Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Lawrence Wallack, Lori Dorfman, David Jernigan, Makani Themba (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993). Offers a blueprint for using media advocacy strategies to advance public health agendas. Responsible Beverage Service: An Implementation Handbook for Communities. James F. Mosher (Palo Alto, CA: Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems and the Health Promotion Resource Center, Stanford University, 1991). Provides information and advice on how to establish responsible beverage service programs. A videotape that complements the handbook is especially useful for introducing the topic to college officials. Available through the Health Promotion Resource Center, Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention, 1000 Welch Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1885. Tel: 650/723-0003. Fax: 650/ 498-7775. Stanford Community Responsible Hospitality Project (Stanford: Stanford University, 1993). Includes detailed information, advice, and materials for implementing a responsible hospitality service program on campus, including Macintosh-formatted discs with artwork, forms, and other material. Available through Student Health Services, Stanford University, 606 Campus Drive Stanford, California 94305-8580. Tel: 650/723-3429; Fax: 650/723-4999. Service Learning Websites American Association of Community Colleges Service Learning Site: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/spcproj/service/service.htm Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges: http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/academic/compact/ Other publications are available from the Center. Visit http://www.edc.org/hec/ to download copies of most of our publications or to place an order for print versions.